It reminds me of those BP commercials for their "Beyond Petroleum" campaign, when they'd interview people with a shallow depth of field and melodramatic acoustic music in the background. I was expecting a Chase Bank logo to appear at the end with the words "We agree."

And the little shit with piercings all over his face? I wouldn't fire him for voicing an opinion; I would never have hired him looking like a jackass.

Learn how to listen to what other people have to say. Without insults, or ridicule, just go to their web sites or their real sites and listen and then think about it with your own brain."Our tradition is one of protest and revolt, and it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past, while we silence the rebels of the present."--Henry Steele Commager

I went down to the Occupy-Saint Louis people and tried to have a conversation with them. Once it was obvious I held views other than their own, they stopped beating each other long enough to start a chant directed at me.

Idea for a cartoon: Christmas at the mall. Child with "OWS" on his t-shirt is on Santa's lap with a huge speech bubble that says, "I want...I want...I want...I want..." Maybe throw in a mom with "taxpayer" on her shirt, eyes wide, wondering, "Who is going to pay for this? We're broke already!"

The ad's constant repetition of "I want, I want," emphasizes the unrealistic, adolescent, and disjointed nature of this movement. All these people want something, and they don't offer a single suggestion on how to attain it. I don't see this absurd ridiculousness (which is much worse than normal ridiculousness) resonating with most people.

So go ahead and run the ad. Let people know how childish this movement is. And keep the blurry background! Wouldn't want those anti-semitic placards to be legible, would we?

-Take a crap on cop a car-Spit on a woman in uniform-Sexually assault a fellow demonstrator-Keep middle class business owners from opening their shop-Go weeks without a shower-Urinate on a sidewalk-Use my iPhone to bash big business

Here in Cincinnati, OWS wants to stay in and dirty up a park that that the surrounding private businesses pay $40,000 a year in non-tax money (beyond taxes) to maintian. And, then complain about corporations.

They forgot to mention, "I want all my debts forgiven, even though I signed my name on the dotted line. I want my college degree to be worth something, even though cultural studies is rather worthless and unmarketable. I had a kick-ass time with the 100g's I borrowed, and I'm really sad the free ride is coming to an end."

Christopher Nolan, the brains behind the last two Batman movies (best evah...) was reportedly shooting down near the protest. I can only assume Bruce Wayne (that noted capitalist and 1%'er) will be battling the undead and they wanted to use the protesters without their knowing.

New York: Thank you for your post. I am sure that you spend considerable time reading the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times to understand in your "own brain" what the one percent believe and think. I hope you and your friends have done that before you made up signs calling for death to bankers and so forth.

Spare me -- none of these comments mean anything, and I suspect the earnest incoherent speakers are paid actors (except maybe Harry Dean Stanton from IBEW Boston). Say, did you know Dick Cheney was a member of the IBEW? But, hey, Repubs know zilch about hard work. Ann, why do you think this is well-made? Because there is no tired chanting in the background? Because there is no screaming at police who have come to ask them not to block a sidewalk? Because nobody is peeing in the background or flipping off the cameraman? Because there is a pretty soundtrack? Well-made how? Seems pretty pedestrian to me, and very unappealing to the middle -- not part of the 99 and not part of the 1.

Actually, a commercial like this isn't terribly expensive to produce, assuming you already have a $3,500 Macbook Pro, a mid-range dSLR, and external sound equipment. You can do the editing and sound mixing on the Mac and distribute free through YouTube. It's the national TV thing that I'm hung up on. Who is financing that?

And maybe instead of buying sound equipment, Macbook Pros, and digital cameras, this 99% could have spent that money paying down their student loans. Just a thought.

Information about the commercial is at the link, if you follow a link to a news.firedoglake.com report by one David Dayen. Follow a link there and you get to a Business Insider report that says:

Occupy Wall Street started its LoudSauce campaign last week with little fanfare and a goal set for $5,000. Thanks to mostly word of mouth (through Twitter and Facebook), the goal was met by Friday. They'll be wrapping up the campaign at the end of this week, and the commercial should be on TV in the next few weeks (they said most likely on ESPN).

Doesn't "economic justice" consist of everyone paying exactly the same percentage of their income as everyone else? Isn't "justice" all being treated fairly by government? Isn't justice being able to keep the vast majority of the fruits of our labor without the government taking it from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't?

Isn't justice being able to keep the vast majority of the fruits of our labor without the government taking it from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't?

I've never been against the government providing a safety net for those that absolutely can't do. We have to admit that those people do exist. The problem, though, is that beside the myriad of other things the government does woefully inefficiently or wastefully, it is extremely bad at deciding who exactly can't do.

Our definition of "can't do" has become so broad that damned near everyone can be a can't do. Show me a system where the impetus is to only take government assistance when absolutely unavoidable, thus to cease taking it as quickly as possible incentivized, and I wouldn't mind so much paying a few extra sheckles.

Plus, assuming such a society, just imagine how much more productive and innovative we would be. Jet pack commute to work, I'm betting.

I would say 5% of people are truly helpless and we should help them. And another 5% - 10% are hopeless and are their own worst enemies and this group will always have their hands out for govt freebies.

Many of the OWS pukes have great potential to be members of the hopeless group. That is why they have their hands out looking for govt freebies.

"The sound quality, depth of field, and bokeh lead me to think this wasn't done on an iPhone."

Well, again, it probably wasn't, but my point was that it wouldn't take expensive equipment or much money to make this video. Moreover,the assumption that everyone participating in the OWS movement is an unemployed slacker without resources, to the degree it exists, is certainly mistaken.

Multiple directors or former directors of the Federal Reserve banks who played a key role in the 2008 bailouts had an apparent conflict of interest, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. These directors had business relationships with companies and banks that received large infusions of government money.

The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who caucuses with the Democrats, noted that the report did not name any names, "but unambiguously described several individual cases involving Fed directors that created the appearance of a conflict of interest." The group of 18 people connected to both the Federal Reserve and a bailed out company included: the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt (who is now President Obama's jobs czar); Stephen Friedman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; and Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase.

Well, again, it probably wasn't, but my point was that it wouldn't take expensive equipment or much money to make this video. Moreover,the assumption that everyone participating in the OWS movement is an unemployed slacker without resources, to the degree it exists, is certainly mistaken.

Really?

So they have these great jobs where they can take weeks off of work to live in a tent?

What makes you think everyone down there is there all the time? It's probably a fluctuating cohort, of whom probably a majority are there for the duration, but with others who flow in and out, who come down on their days, off or during lunch hour, or after their work hours have ended.

A work colleague of mine who retired last year told me she went down there recently and a female police officer assigned there told her that if she (the cop) weren't on duty and in uniform, she would be right there among the OWS protesters.

Seems most of the people on this blog associate themselves with CEO's and the top 1%.

Your opinion is valued insomuch as you completely miss the point. By such a wide margin, I might add, that it's pointless to explain it to you. It's either willful ignorance or simply ignorance. I doubt it's that ever-possible third option...that you're living in your mother's basement taking a break from WoW. Since you managed to string two sentences together without calling someone a wiccasatanist, I'll assume it's not that third thing.

Well, again, it probably wasn't, but my point was that it wouldn't take expensive equipment or much money to make this video. Moreover,the assumption that everyone participating in the OWS movement is an unemployed slacker without resources, to the degree it exists, is certainly mistaken.

Well, if you look at my first comment, you'll note that I agree with you: This ad wouldn't be terribly expensive to produce. Aside from an external mic, I probably have all the equipment needed to make it myself. But it most definitely wasn't done on a phone.

Looks like it's shot on a Canon 5D, which is pretty popular these days because of what you can do with lenses. It's the kind of rig that someone aspiring to be a pro might use. Call it pro-sumer. Soon, though, that kind of perfect HD video WILL be available on phones-- 3 years tops. Minus the nice lens, which does make a big difference.

So do you agree monopolies should be broken up or not?Do you agree companies should pay for their own bailouts or not?How do you feel about CEO's who cut staff but give themselves raises?Do you think we should get corporate money [and union money] out of politics?Do you have ANY issues whatsoever with Wall Street or Banks?In fact, do you have ANY issues whatsoever with anything or do you not really care?

@YoungHegelian, and when the unregulated banks create algorithmic monstrosities of financial instruments and blow up the world economy, it costs the Fed 16 trillion to bail them out... Wonder what's more expensive?

It used to be liberals would recite the "teach a man to fish" story now its not evan the "give a man a fish" story its the "give a man somebody elses fish" story. The real tradjedy of their movement is they don't represent the 99% they represent the folks who would still be unemployed if the rate were at 3.5%. but I do agree; when your stealing someone elses fish and giving it to others for power and votes you do have the begining of a revolution.

"And when the unregulated banks create algorithmic monstrosities of financial instruments and blow up the world economy, it costs the Fed 16 trillion to bail them out.."

Take a wild guess as to who had a big hand in rating and packaging those mortgage derivatives? None other than those Fannie, Freddie, and Uncle Sam.

I don't like big corporations. I especially hate banks, as every SMB owner does. I think that, if they had been real men of honor, hundreds of Wall Street bankers should have committed hari-kiri after the crash. None did.

I just don't trust the government to make things better. I live in the DC area and I see the Federal demon every day in the flesh, and it ain't pretty.

Anyway, I think there is more you have in common with regular working folks who give a damn than you think. [And let's stop pretending like people who care and take part in the OWS movement are all unemployed 23 year olds.]

I know the liberal left has latched onto the OWS movement. But the populist argument about corporate control and the world of the haves and the have-nots is not a partisan one.

You can - like most people - just give in to it and shrug. Or you can stand up and protest about the collusion of government and corporations. There is a fight to be had on that front. But most would rather not bother. That is why nothing really ever changes.

@younghegelian there's got to be a balance here somewhere. Make the government more efficient, hold politicians closer to account, and not let corporate behemoths get away with murder. Methinks there's a link between all of these!

The current left/right divide is a sack of crap... which is why you see all the usual grievance mongers and profiteers (COUGH limbaugh COUGH) up in arms right now.

The cycle of recrimination (You were mean to Bush! I'm mean to Obama! I'm mean to Tea! You're mean to OWS!) has got to end somewhere. Probably not until all the boomers die off. LOL

Coketown=genius. These people never stopped believing in Santa Claus. Gimme, gimme, gimme.Maybe The One(percenter) will start wearing a red suit and white beard and bounce them on his knee.

No surprise that the ad does not show the militant repercussions which occur in the OWS herd when their demands are thwarted . . . .

No surprise that the media dishonestly covered up the anti-semitism and violence against women in Tahrir Square and now does the same with the OWS protestors. (Female reporter in Oakland failed to report that an OWS protestor had physically threatened her. http://bigjournalism.com/abreitbart/2011/10/20/source-abc-reporters-life-allegedly-threatened-at-occupy-oakland-we-shoot-white-bitches-like-you-around-here/and no mention of the anti-Semites in these crowd on the evening news.)

"a female police officer assigned there told her that if she (the cop) weren't on duty and in uniform, she would be right there among the OWS protesters."That's terrific. How much you suppose she makes? How is her benefit package? At what age can/will she retire?

"How do you feel about CEO's who cut staff but give themselves raises?"If they gave themselves raises, then they own the company. They can do what they want. OTOH, if the board gave them the raise, if I was you I wouldnt own stock in that company.

"Do you think we should get corporate money [and union money] out of politics?"Sure. And non profit money. And groups more than one person. No more newspapers giving free advertising in terms of editorials or covering/not covering news.

"when the unregulated banks...."Which bank did you think was unregulated?

"Um, the bailouts were a bipartisan affair and were initiated by the Bush Administration while he was still in office, and before Obama was even the President-elect.""Um, So there is your reason not to vote for Bush. And now that Obama continued the bailouts there is a reason not to vote for Obama. Yet many who protest, plan to.

Oh, Matt – you sound like you are about 2 years old. (And correcting typographical errors of other posters is so adult.)So do you agree monopolies should be broken up or not? Depends on the monopoly – usually monopolies (very large market share over 50%) are better for the consumer (assuming there is some competition to keep them honest and undercut them if they get too greedy), but that assumes the market is freely at work to enable other to engage in their business. If you mean a monopoly like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mae, then let us by all means talk about the bad monopolies the federal government underwrote, requiring banks to make bad loans, and let us hold Dodd and Frank responsible and indict them.

Do you agree companies should pay for their own bailouts or not? Absolutely, and that includes GM who should have been allowed to fail, and BofA who should fail sometime later this month. But will our government stand aside and let the market work? No – and who has to pay for that? Me, because I do pay some taxes.

How do you feel about CEO's who cut staff but give themselves raises? I think the Board of Directors and the shareholders of the company should have something to say about that, after all, that is who the CEO reports to – not you, not The New York Times, not Paul Krugman. By the way, examples? I can think of some very successful companies that have increased sales and employment, and I can think of some companies who cut staff, but I am not aware that the greedy CEO then took all their pay and rubbed the cash all over his nekked body ala Intolerance.

Do you think we should get corporate money [and union money] out of politics? Don’t care, let everybody spend whatever they want to, as long as they have to confess WHO is doing the spending of the campaign and advertising funds. And, by the way, I do think foreign money should be prohibited, but no one on the left seems to agree.

Do you have ANY issues whatsoever with Wall Street or Banks? None that I think the government or my taxpayer money needs to handle. Again, the shareholders of the companies certainly have plenty to say about what is allowed and possible. By the way, what in your mind is Wall Street? I always thought it was me and my retirement money and my investments.

In fact, do you have ANY issues whatsoever with anything or do you not really care? I have issues with people using taxpayer money to rebuild in flood zones – like New Orleans and the Gulf Coast and Galveston – because I am just damned if I think Obama can (unlike King Canute) command the waves. I have issues with people marching on Wall Street when they should be marching on Washington, but then, I never did credit most teenagers or left wing apologists with the sense that God gave a goose. I have issues with you belittling the Tea Party and then suggesting the Occupy [fill in the name of your town] people have important points we all must listen too or we are sheep or fascists or both.

And do not correct any typos, please, I fear it would take too much time from your studying for the PSATs, so you can go to college to get a degree in Womyn Studies.

Now, I have to get back to work, so my ignorant customers will pay me for helping them.

"There is a fight to be had on that front. But most would rather not bother. That is why nothing really ever changes."

Right. That's why the tea party was a total failure. They had zero effect on the last election. I would give the OWS people a tiny bit of respect if they were talking about voting in different people, rather than calling for a overthrow of the system.

Looks like it's shot on a Canon 5D, which is pretty popular these days because of what you can do with lenses. It's the kind of rig that someone aspiring to be a pro might use. Call it pro-sumer. Soon, though, that kind of perfect HD video WILL be available on phones-- 3 years tops. Minus the nice lens, which does make a big difference.

Please note: All this brilliant technology is brought to you by evil, profit-seeking corporations whose factories and machine tools were financed by even eviller banksters.

Those companies given tarp funds, whether they wanted them or not, have for the most part repaid the entire amounts or remain shackled to the rules they had to accept to survive.

I feel fine when management cuts staff to increase profits and I think they should be rewarded if the cuts increase profits. Not if they don't.

I believe corporate and union money should be free to be spent on whatever the members or stockholders agree with including, and especially, political speech.

There are many kinds of banks both on and off Wall Street so generalizations about their goodness or badness has to be more pointed. Many poorly run banks, many banks have gone bust, many well run banks. All lumped together in the eyes and minds of OWS

initiated by the Bush Administration while he was still in office, and before Obama was even the President-elect.

*GIGGLE*

President-elect Barack Obama told Democratic senators in a closed lunch today that he needs the second $350 billion authorized by Congress as part of the TARP legislation last year and that he'll veto any move by Congress to cut that funding off.

I think it's a well-made commercial, and it turns me off. I want my kids to have jobs and healthcare too...so what does that mean?

"I want democracy for the 99% of us who don't have it?" This is disheartening. I just saw Libyans singing and dancing tonight because there 40-year dictator is dead. Just ask them if 99% of Americans don't have democracy. As one living in post-Mubarek Egypt, I can tell you Egyptians may agree with some of the more social demands of the movement, but they all tend to find the part about democracy-lacking in America laughable.

When I tell Egyptians there are protests going on on Wall Street, they usually laugh and incredulously say "America? But you have a wealthier country than any of us AND a working political system. You've been under Obama 3 years, and we were under Mubarek for 30!"

To me, this behavior is insulting to those who live under real dictatorships. To those who are not looking forward just to the routine elections that happen every year or two, but their first real election. The first election where they will actually be able to vote for any of the numerous parties on the ballot.

These people's refusal to play by the rules we have all agreed to is childish and stupid.

"it is stultifying to celebrate the rebels of the past, while we silence the rebels of the present."

Are all past rebels celebrated? Are they celebrated simply because they were rebels or do they have other qualifications?

Granted, you know, that's why certain sorts celebrate Che'... because he's all romantic and rebel-y and never mind what he did or advocated. There's a "rebel" in Africa now, who we just went to war against, who steals children and forces them to fight. Definitely a rebel. Yay, rebel!

If the original tea party frat boys in their racially insensitive costumes had murdered some poor villagers, maybe progressives would celebrate them more.

Apropos of Michael’s rejoinder to Matt: Matt: "Or you can stand up and protest about the collusion of government and corporations."Are all corporations in collusion with govt? Private as well as public? Which should be singled out and what solution is proposed to eradicate the alleged collusion. And what, exactly, do they collude about?

Exactly – and doesn’t this remark by Matt just smack of the alleged international Jewish cabal that runs all businesses and has insinuated itself into our government and they are all in collusion and it is all the fault of those damn Jews, who stuff MckingWendy’s burgers down the craws of the world and glue your eyes open to force you to watch Dis-xar, and wear Gap? By the way, Matt, you have typos (horrors!) in your blogs.

I repeat – spare me.

(I finished helping that customer, so now can go back to my puzzlement.)Ann, WHY is this a good commercial? Because it glosses over the excesses and problems of this unfocused and incoherent rabble?

Rachel Goldie, 20, decided to leave the protest Wednesday because she felt it had been corrupted by people who didn't care about economic justice. "Everybody is pretty much just partying it up," she said.

There are a lot of big ideas floating around Occupy L.A., but not a whole lot of consensus. The protesters have yet to codify a list of demands. In recent days, tensions within the group have spiked over drug use and growing numbers of homeless who have joined the camp.

By the way, has any prominent left wing spoken out against the rapes and boorish behavior yet?

I didn't watch it. I'm tired of Occupy [town], and I suppose most of the normal people out there already are too. I can't help but believe this whole thing was manufactured by those inside the the Obama reelection effort, the timing being the primary tell. I just can't figure why they'd think this will help. I think it hurts. The majority of people who work, pay their bills, and vote are put off.

"Seems most of the people on this blog associate themselves with CEO's and the top 1%. Kind of odd but maybe you just feel you will be one of them someday so why question your masters."

Ah, the old "I want capitalism because I want winners and losers and I'm 100% positive I'm going to be one of the winners" argument cribbed from some lofty Ivy League Philosophy professor.

How about this one, "I want a government that will force cooperation in order to take stuff from some people and give it to other people because I am 100% positive I'm going to be one of the ones getting free stuff and none of the force will be directed my way."

You know, I think that in the mega thread yesterday about the survey no one mentioned the percentage of OWS protestors who had been politically active that way previously. IIRC, the percentage was very high. The Tea Party was unique in that the people involved were primarily people who had never politically agitated before for anything. And they were *old*. After a lifetime of not demonstrating for anything, people went out to make sure they were heard. OWS is full of 20-somethings who are already old hat at making demands.

Oh, Ned – that is just such a good link (using YouTube, the media of choice for the movement per Garage’s link) to the explanation of the demands of Occupy Atlanta, which seem to be for, you know, the government, you know, to stop suggesting that 9/11 or the train bombings in Madrid ever even took place because, you know, it seriously disturbs this woman’s calm, you know.

And Garage, I never took statistics but even I can tell these numbers are not representative and do not hang together and are worthy of a global warming expert, but, hey, when you have good thing going, why think?

Yes indeed! In a REAL world, this whole thing would be dismissed day 1.5 but with the Libs and the SCOAMF revealed for what they are and totally rejected they will grasp at ANYTHING to appear relevant...man we have fallen a long way!

Can anyone point me to the great men & women attending these rallies? I mean by accomplishments, not intentions. Because now the OWS crowd fancies themselves the new "Founding Fathers" and they're gonna hold a convention in Philadelphia. But those were truly great men. I want to know what is special about this rabble?

"I don't want to work for a living, but I want to be paid. I want free health care. I want to work for a corporation but have the ability to scam that corporation and talk badly about that corporation. I will look the other way when my political party is in bed with corporations *cough* Goldman Sachs *cough*."

"President-elect Barack Obama told Democratic senators in a closed lunch today that he needs the second $350 billion authorized by Congress as part of the TARP legislation last year and that he'll veto any move by Congress to cut that funding off."

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

Note: I did not say Barack Obama and his administration did not continue these programs once in office; I said only that the programs were initiated by the Bush Administration in 2008, before Obama was even the president-elect.

Your assertion that someone voted for the Democrats so they could bail out the banks is ahistorical.

Oh, I didn't even point out that the article you linked to was bylined January 13, 2009, before Obama had even been sworn into office.

I guess I didn't think it necessary, given that the internal evidence of the passage you quoted was sufficent to reveal that TARP had been passed by the Bush Administration. But, on second thought, why let such an obvious detail go unmentioned?

"Your assertion that someone voted for the Democrats so they could bail out the banks is ahistorical."

No. It's really not.

Bush was president, but the Senate and House were overwhelmingly Democrat.

Not that anyone voted for someone to bail out the banks, because that was never an election issue on any side. It only became an issue after it happened and a good portion of the electorate went WTF?

Not just WTF for bank bailouts, but the other bailouts as well. And then, of course, was the stimulus, which was a different expenditure and was supposed to help the economy by stimulating it, but in reality mostly it was a local government bail-out and just kept local governments afloat without requiring of them any uncomfortable economies.

Being against bail-outs is probably the one single thing that OWS and the Tea Party agree upon.

Banks or corporations or businesses or local governments should know, without a doubt, that if they screw up too badly they will be left to hang. Not hunted down with pitch-forks and tar torches, simply *allowed* to fail. Knowing they won't be saved by the confiscation of other people's money is a vital incentive for financial prudence, for not putting a business "too big to fail" all in one financial basket, and to discourage the sort of risk taking that leads to an excess of algorithmic creativity.

Also, I think it was always pretty clear that Obama thought that he had been elected to throw ever more money at the problem. TARP may have begun under Bush and a majority Democrat congress, but Obama ran the last month of his election on how he would solve the economic crisis. His actions after he was elected... continuing and expanding what were stop-gap lame-duck measures, can't be excused by saying someone else started it.

Synova, nice try, but your sophistry cannot obscure the fact that the bailouts of the financial institutions were signed into law by George Bush. Again, I stated explicitly that these programs received bipartisan support...I don't claim he, specifically or solely, was the author of the bailouts. However, it's quite rich that somehow we're now expected to believe that George Bush had nothing to do with the programs he signed into law, to accept that he was a hapless and helpless hostage to the dictates of a tyrannical Democratic majority in Congress.

If this had happened at the end of Bush's first term he would have done the same thing, and if Bush's successor had been John McCain, he would have continued with the programs as Obama did, (his later dissembling that he had been "misled" on the bailout programs notwithstanding).

The heated ideological warring between the rank and file of the two parties is comically misplaced, as the actors in Washington work in concert to protect and guarantee the well-being and continued prosperity of their real constituents, the banks and financial institutions.

The post hoc revisionist assertions (by some) that Obama's Administration caused the financial collapse or that the bailouts originated with Obama's administration are simply attempts to obfuscate the historical reality, to flense from the Republicans any taint of responsibility for these programs.

I don't necessarily argue that the banks shouldn't have been let to fail, but as they weren't and didn't, I don't know if anyone can say with certainty whether it would have been better or worse if they had been left to twist in the wind. However, given that the bailouts were enacted, their lack of any strings attached, the absence of any requirements by the recipients of the bailouts that they be required to offer similar relief to their customers--the homeowners who were being foreclosed upon, the homeowners whose homes suddenly dropped precipitously in value, etc.--was a terrible defect of the bailouts--surely intentional--and an overt, screaming admission by official Washington of their abject servility to Wall Street, their true master.

However, it's quite rich that somehow we're now expected to believe that George Bush had nothing to do with the programs he signed into law, to accept that he was a hapless and helpless hostage to the dictates of a tyrannical Democratic majority in Congress.

Dubya appears to have been talked into TARP by Hank Paulson.

Both performed wretchedly (and Paulson was obviously acting to protect the interests of Goldman Sachs at nearly eveyone else's expense).

Opposition to Obama does not, in general, equate to support for Dubya.

Nor does the fact that Dubya did some of these things first get Obama off the hook for continuing to do them, then doing worse on top of them.

Are you really going to argue that Dubya would have gone on to commission a senior appropriator like David Obey to write and to push Congress to pass Porkulus Sr. (aka ARRA)? You know, the bailout for unions and state and local governments...

Nice use of the word 'flense'. And you are correct. The economic crisis is a bipartisan issue if ever there was one. Unfortunately, three years into this mess folks like Cain come along and propose a flat tax that will shift the tax burden on everyone except the investor class [top 1%] who somehow managed to create jobs for years without big tax cuts but have done much less since they started receiving the Bush [now Obama] tax cuts.

But politicians have to keep the super wealthy happy because they help bankroll campaigns and control a lot of the policies coming out of Washington.

I don't want to go full-Titus here, but I haven't taken a solid dump in about two years, because every day has been a white-knuckle fight to keep my small business operating, while it's been besieged on every side by the socialist idiots elected by "I want, I want, I want" adult babies like Cook and J and Matt.

You want wealth, assholes? Make some. Create something other than pithy comments, CO2, and poop.

Unless it is there intention to replace our society, their focus should be on corruption of authoritarian interests. We know there is corruption in both the private and public sectors. We do not have sufficient information to distinguish between cause and effect. It is only through the application of law that knowledge will potentially be recovered peacefully.

This reminds me of the "sickle" vs "hammer", or was it "scalpel" vs "hatchet", debate.

Well, either way, it would be preferable to provide a correction without alienating innocent individuals and interests unnecessarily, which will further destabilize our society. This requires a rule of law, equally applied, by civil servants with integrity.

Maybe you ought to argue with them, then. Whoever they are. In fact, introduce us because it would be interesting to meet someone who didn't know that the crisis came to a head during the presidential campaign season before Obama was elected.

"or that the bailouts originated with Obama's administration"

Unless there haven't been any *new* bailouts since Obama was sworn in, he most certainly *originated* bailouts. But I do know what you mean... you mean that the originator bears the blame. Sorta like that adorable visitor the other day who explained that Solyndra's application was *filed* during the Bush administration. Apparently this is the principle of First Contact. Because the Bush administration kept it on file instead of throwing it out, it's not Obama's fault.

"are simply attempts to obfuscate the historical reality, to flense from the Republicans any taint of responsibility for these programs."

I think most people are more interested in contemporary reality than in obfuscating Historical reality.

Unfortunately, three years into this mess folks like Cain come along and [blah blah blah]

Thanks, Matt, but the entire rest of the Republican field already pointed out that Cain's plan places undue burdens on the poor.

The correct approach, of course, is to cut income taxes on the people who actually pay income tax (i.e., not the poor) and redistribute that burden to... NOBODY. Spend less, tax less. The private sector produces wealth, the public sector consumes wealth. If you want more wealth, available for general use -- e.g., job creation -- shrink the governmen's share of the economy. I.e., do the exact opposite of what we've been doing this last 11 years.

Note: I did not say Barack Obama and his administration did not continue these programs once in office; I said only that the programs were initiated by the Bush Administration in 2008, before Obama was even the president-elect.

Note: TARP was supported by, and implemented by Obama.

Note: TARP was written by, and supported by a majority of Democrats in Congress.

Your assertion that someone voted for the Democrats so they could bail out the banks is ahistorical.

I never asserted that.

I said they party they vote for bailed out the banks and said person will vote for Democrats again while bemoaning the bailouts.

From the article linked above,(datelined September 2008): "A grim-faced President Bush acknowledged risks to taxpayers in what would be the most sweeping government intervention to rescue failing financial institutions since the Great Depression. But he declared, 'The risk of not acting would be far higher.'"